On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 05:31:11PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> writes: > > > Unfortunately, I have nothing useful to say. > > Well, there is the code (obviously bound to be streamlined before > implementation) and there are the proposed semantics. At least for the > latter, I would want to get some sort of feedback.
I agree. :( > The semantics can be summarized as follows: Those look fine to me. > Once I rewrite the property code in C, getting negative feedback about > the semantics afterwards will be a major pain. So I made a toy > implementation (it is already suffering from too much premature > optimization for a toy, but is still more or less readable) in Scheme. If you really want to poke the hornet's nest, and if the scheme implementation can be used for any arbitrary lilypond file (i.e. just by adding an \include "new-overrides.ly" to the top), then we could ask on the lilypond-user mailing list. Since we'll be having a release candidate as soon as Mike fixes his python 2.4 problem in output-distance.py, I'd ask you to wait until 2.16 is out before pushing this change. That's the only real feedback I can give, sorry. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
